|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Should the 22nd ammendment be Repealed?|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
No what's pitiful is that we are STILL waiting for you to cite your source to LineDoggie in that other thread. Going on a week now, Jack, still having trouble finding it? |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
I totally agree if President Obama blows this golden oportunity then I would say yes. its just to early to tell. He has a plan and seems to be sticking to it so lets see what happens by the end of the year. I dont like his support of Illegal aliens,and socialized medicine, but its his game to win or lose. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Valid point, and subject to debate which was/is worse. But for those of us that believe that States have rights, you have to agree that that they lost one with the 14th. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Ill tell you why IMO. This nation is supposed to be about we the people, and although it appears that way on the surface its really not and the people have little voice. Example? The vast majority are opposed to Illegal immigration, they favor deportation and enforcement of our immigration laws. So then why are politicians supporting an amnesty program and continuing to aid them at the expense of taxpayer citizens? Why are the borders still wide open? The answer is simple, because they know we the people cant do a dammed thing about it. The democrats and the Republicans are one and the same as far as im concerned. They have aligned with Industry and no longer serve the people being in the pockets of big business and lobbyists. They can work across party lines and make deals because thats what its all about Deals and self serving. They can chose candidates that give voters the choice between Arsenic or Hemlock assuring a victory with concessions. Thats how I voted for Bush the first time around. Lesser of the evils. Thats some way to vote isnt it? Repealing the 22nd Ammendment would change that And they would have to put up viable candidates if they hoped to win the W.H. Then it would be we the people speaking and in control. Show us a candidate that will do a better job than our current president is doing. It would also end the Lame duck syndrome of the current president who would be working harder to maintain his credibility instead of feathering his nest for the future by doing favors he would not be doing otherwise. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Now that would be optional wouldnt it? They dont have to Run again if there just looking for the money. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
The difference of a bank robber and a politician that serves past 12 years in D C is the bank robber goes to prison, the politician gets rich. (Which btw, the Washingtons, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, lost money serving the country.) Very few polticians having served this long, both sides of the aisle, becomes senile in their thinking and won't or can't affiliate themselves with the constituents. Kennedy is a joke, his State elects him duly by name recognition, pork, and senority in the Senate. Seniority plus kissing up to the establishment keeps the inept in power. In our system today there is little reason to send more than one representative from each party. Save one hell of a lot of money and hot air.
One of the few men that IMO could have should have remained in the House was Charlie Bennett, Democrat. Trained Filipino scouts duration WWII. Picking up and suffering from polio the rest of his life, never missed a roll call vote and when his turn came to head up the important defense committee was denied by the party politic's. Murtha holding this position today is a travesty. Anyway, Mr. Bennett resigned the next election and I became an Independent. Though President Washington never spoke on term limits since he only served two himself and had to be talk into the second. He was not a politician or a lawyer, but a soldier. Should tell you something. He spent about half of his Farewall Address on the warnings of the two party system. Term limits are a safeguard our founders understood but avoided. Never thinking this nation would regress back to the rule by heritage rather finding the expertise and talent to lead by example. But, yet we're limited to two parties system with laws to prop them up, for three hundred million people. If you can't see anything wrong with limiting choice how in the hell can you argue about limiting terms. |
|||
|
Previous Posts as Jade_Gate |
Not at all, Jack. In fact, you rank right up there near Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as "great men" ... you contribute a much-needed perspective to some arguments and like a few others on both the left and the right (Sara Palin comes to mind), are a gift that keeps on giving. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Thats exactly what happens when the two major parties align with industry and each other, becoming one and the same. Exact Same results different MO. Unbridled authority any way you slice it. |
|||
|
|
Member |
And if we had term limits on Senators, Congressmen, Governors, etc. too you wouldn't have that would you?
 |
|||
|
|
Member |
Term limits stay intact and for those Congress and Senators, that term limit should be up now.
Lets get rid of ALL the bums, remember when you vote next time, vote for whom ever has not served in the congress or the senate...kick the bums out!!!! |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
Ok, what State do you live in? And is YOUR State supportive of Mr. Kennedy?  Dave |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
My point, which I suspect you understood, is that Kennedy comes from a State which disagrees with your judgement. Nothing I said even implys that you don't have a right to an opinion about him - Rather that the people of Massachusetts have the only opinion that counts. If they want him for fifty terms, that is up to them - They and not you, OR I, are the deciders. Dave |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
While I disagree with the above, because I think it's BOTH undemocratic AND silly; silly because the Senators are still coming from the same State, and undemocratic for obvious reasons - I AM a supporter of the electoral college system, for the reasons you name.
States often have different interests. If small states didn't have a few extra votes, then our Party system would pay them AND their needs no mind at all. The only change I would make, it to make it impossibe for an elector to change his/her vote. It should be an automatic process. Dave |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
dman1948
Posted Thu 02 July 2009 01:53 PM Term limits stay intact and for those Congress and Senators, that term limit should be up now. Lets get rid of ALL the bums, remember when you vote next time, vote for whom ever has not served in the congress or the senate...kick the bums out!!!! I dont have a problem with that so long as we the people do the hiring and firing. I just cant see not allowing a president whos doing the job and who the people want not being allowed to run. Term limits. If the vast majority want him and elect him why not? Its the people speaking and thats what counts. If hes a bum he wont make it anyway. |
|||
|
|
suspended pending review,Nemesis |
I know of no dictator in modern times who was democratically elected. The USA is a "Representative" Democracy. Aside from the hesitations of the Founders which were altered by 1830, a direct Democracy is just plain impossible, at least up to now. When direct Democracies WERE possible they did fairly well. Most of what we call "Classical Greek Literature, science, and law, is the product of the direct Democracy of Athens. Athens, despite many problems did not fail because of any internal flaws, but rather the enoumous power of Philip of Macedon. Who militarily destroyed them. It may very well be possible to have a direct democracy in the US, thanks to the internest. Dave |
|||
|
|
Member |
How far back do you consider "modern times"? Almost every Dictator in Europe prior to WWII was elected. Hitler Mussolini Dollfuss Horthy Franco seized power in Spain's three-way Civil War, and I'm not sure how Stalin took over after Lenin. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I think H.E.L.L. just froze over, Dave did you just agree with ME?  |
|||
|
|
Member |
Just think about how long that either the Bush or the Clinton family have been running this country and look at the mess we are in.
Bush Sr, two term vp under Reagan and one term is Pres Clinton two term Pres Bush Jr two term Pres And Obama is offically Pres but Hillary is right in there and let's face it, this healthcare deal is her baby. no john, you get two terms only. No career politians. |
|||
|
 |
Thank you. I am indeed honored to be ranked up there with those men you mentioned. The gift that keeps on giving? lol ... Try the Republican party. lol "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." - T. Jefferson |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
as a certain former member used to say..."Yup"
I don't know if I'd call it her baby. But I have no doubt her hand is in it it. But that doesn't make it either good or bad. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News Should the 22nd ammendment be Repealed?
